Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    PCIB v. Balmaceda

    Uploaded by

    Johney Doe
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case between Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIB) and Antonio Balmaceda and Rolando Ramos. PCIB alleged that between 1991-1993, Balmaceda, as branch manager, fraudulently obtained and cashed 34 manager's checks. PCIB also alleged that Ramos, Balmaceda's brother-in-law, colluded with Balmaceda and received a portion of the proceeds. The trial court found both defendants liable. However, the Court of Appeals dismissed the case against Ramos, finding insufficient evidence of his involvement. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding that PCIB did not prove by a preponderance of evidence

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PCIB v. Balmaceda

    Uploaded by

    Johney Doe
    1K views1 page
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case between Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIB) and Antonio Balmaceda and Rolando Ramos. PCIB alleged that between 1991-1993, Balmaceda, as branch manager, fraudulently obtained and cashed 34 manager's checks. PCIB also alleged that Ramos, Balmaceda's brother-in-law, colluded with Balmaceda and received a portion of the proceeds. The trial court found both defendants liable. However, the Court of Appeals dismissed the case against Ramos, finding insufficient evidence of his involvement. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding that PCIB did not prove by a preponderance of evidence

    Original Description:

    commercial law

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case between Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIB) and Antonio Balmaceda and Rolando Ramos. PCIB alleged that between 1991-1993, Balmaceda, as branch manager, fraudulently obtained and cashed 34 manager's checks. PCIB also alleged that Ramos, Balmaceda's brother-in-law, colluded with Balmaceda and received a portion of the proceeds. The trial court found both defendants liable. However, the Court of Appeals dismissed the case against Ramos, finding insufficient evidence of his involvement. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding that PCIB did not prove by a preponderance of evidence

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views1 page

    PCIB v. Balmaceda

    Uploaded by

    Johney Doe
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case between Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIB) and Antonio Balmaceda and Rolando Ramos. PCIB alleged that between 1991-1993, Balmaceda, as branch manager, fraudulently obtained and cashed 34 manager's checks. PCIB also alleged that Ramos, Balmaceda's brother-in-law, colluded with Balmaceda and received a portion of the proceeds. The trial court found both defendants liable. However, the Court of Appeals dismissed the case against Ramos, finding insufficient evidence of his involvement. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding that PCIB did not prove by a preponderance of evidence

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    158143

    September 21, 2011

    PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, vs. ANTONIO B. BALMACEDA and ROLANDO N. RAMOS, Respondents. FACTS: PCIB filed an action for recovery of sum of money with damages before the RTC against Antonio Balmaceda, the Branch Manager of its Sta. Cruz, Manila branch. In its complaint, PCIB alleged that between 1991 and 1993, Balmaceda, by taking advantage of his position as branch manager, fraudulently obtained and encashed 31 Managers checks. PCIB then moved to be allowed to file an amended complaint to implead Rolando Ramos as one of the recipients of a portion of the proceeds from Balmacedas alleged fraud. PCIB also increased the number of fraudulently obtained and encashed Managers checks to 34 in which the RTC granted. Since Balmaceda did not file an Answer, he was declared in default. On the other hand, Ramos filed an Answer denying any knowledge of Balmacedas scheme. The RTC then issued a decision in favor of PCIB, where the RTC found that Balmaceda, took undue advantage of his position and authority as branch manager and Ramos acted in collusion with Balmaceda. On appeal, the CA dismissed the complaint against Ramos, holding that no sufficient evidence existed to prove that Ramos colluded with Balmaceda in the latters fraudulent manipulations and thus CA SET ASIDE the Decision of the trial court insofar as Ramos is concerned. Hence this petition for review on certiorari, filed by the Philippine Commercial International Bank. ISSUE: Whether or not Ramos who received a portion of the money that Balmaceda took from PCIB, should also be held liable for the return of this money to the Bank. RULING: No, Ramos is not liable. The Supreme Court PARTIALLY GRANTED the petition and AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals dated with the MODIFICATION that the award of moral and exemplary damages in favor of Rolando N. Ramos is DELETED. PCIB, as plaintiff, had to prove, by preponderance of evidence, its positive assertion that Ramos conspired with Balmaceda in perpetrating the latters scheme to defraud the Bank. All that PCIBs evidence proves is that Balmaceda used Ramos name as a payee when he filled up the application forms for the Managers checks. But, as the CA correctly observed, the mere fact that Balmaceda made Ramos the payee on some of the Managers checks is not enough basis to conclude that Ramos was complicit in Balmacedas fraud; a number of other people were made payees on the other Managers checks yet PCIB never alleged them to be liable, nor did the Bank adduce any other evidence pointing to Ramos participation that would justify his separate treatment from the others. Also, while Ramos is Balmacedas brother-in-law, their relationship is not sufficient, by itself, to render Ramos liable, absent concrete proof of his actual participation in the fraudulent scheme. The party carrying the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence, or evidence which, to the court, is more worthy of belief than the evidence offered in opposition. In Encinas v. National Bookstore, Inc., defined "preponderance of evidence" in the following manner: "Preponderance of evidence" is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term "greater weight of the evidence" or "greater weight of the credible evidence." Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto. Ramos participation in Balmacedas scheme was not proven by PCIB by preponderance of evidence. Given that PCIB failed to establish Ramos participation in Balmacedas scheme, it was not even necessary for Ramos to provide an explanation for the money he received from Balmaceda. Even if the evidence adduced by the plaintiff appears stronger than that presented by the defendant, a judgment cannot be entered in the plaintiffs favor if his evidence still does not suffice to sustain his cause of action;25 to reiterate, a preponderance of evidence as defined must be established to achieve this result.

    You might also like